Letter author omits 'important line'

A council candidate has taken issue with a statement in the "letters to the editor" pages of The Weekend Sun and the letter's author agrees he got it wrong.

Mark Groos responded to Graham Clark's writings, published in the Sun on Friday and in the Letters section of SunLive -- showing that his comments were not accurately reported, and Graham has apologised.
Graham Clark, in an email to SunLive, says:"In a private exchange of emails to Mark Groos I asked him the following question:
What if the majority of the ratepayers demand a museum, and you know it will bankrupt the council - do you still do it because the majority want it?Mark's response was:
'If the majority of the community demand a museum and are prepared to pay for it, then I will do it.'
In a letter to the Sun Graham wrote the following:
'I asked Mark that 'if the council was bankrupt, but the majority of ratepayers voted the council go ahead with an expensive item, what would he do?”Mark said "if the majority wanted it, that's what he would deliver! - Even though they were bankrupt!'
"I omitted the most important words from his response 'If they are prepared to pay for it'."
Graham says: "This is a key phrase in Mark's reply to me, and by omitting this key phrase from my letter I have insinuated that he would be prepared to bankrupt the city, which could not be further from the truth. I would sincerely like to apologise for my omission of these words in my letter and to Mark for inadvertently misrepresenting his answer to me."

14 comments

From Graham Clark

Posted on 18-09-2010 12:39 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

Omitting the following statement: \"If they are willing to pay for it\" altered the meaning of my question to Mark. I wanted Mark to tell me what he would do should the majority demand that he do something Stupid, ie would he do it just because the majority demanded it! By adding that statement to my question, it altered the question, and by omitting those words in my letter to the Weekend Sun made it sound like Mark would be irresponsible, which could not be further from the truth. In my correspondence with Mark I have found him to be passionate, driven, and totally responsible in wanting to achieve what is best for the city (regardless of whether I agree with his methods or not!) My opologies to Mark for not including his addition to my question.


LOL

Posted on 18-09-2010 12:51 | By Wussy

Thats all I have to say


WELL DONE GRAHAM

Posted on 18-09-2010 12:58 | By The Master

Appreciate the honesty in tabling the mistake


CONTRAST IS A VOTE CATCHER

Posted on 18-09-2010 13:04 | By The Master

In comparison, The report by the \"other\" paper reporting on Mayor Crosby and saying that Council staff will report to the new Councillors after the election about reviewing the 17.8% planned rate increase for next year (2011/2012) is amazing ... because: 1 He and the others in control voted out any possibility of cost saving only a couple of months ago ? 2 Stating that there are no savings to be made, \"we\" have looked ... 3 Suddenly without any involvement of Councillors, without and advice to current Councillors, without and resolution of Councillors he makes an announcement now on the EVE OF VOTE PAPERS being posted. The timing is amazingly obvious for what it is. Vote carefully folks.


From Graham Clark

Posted on 18-09-2010 13:23 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

Omitting the following statement: \"If they are willing to pay for it\" altered the meaning of my question to Mark. I wanted Mark to tell me what he would do should the majority demand that he do something Stupid, ie would he do it just because the majority demanded it! By adding that statement to my question, it altered the question, and by omitting those words in my letter to the Weekend Sun made it sound like Mark would be irresponsible, which could not be further from the truth. In my correspondence with Mark I have found him to be passionate, driven, and totally responsible in wanting to achieve what is best for the city (regardless of whether I agree with his methods or not!) My apologies to Mark for not including his addition to my question.


Thank You

Posted on 19-09-2010 13:12 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

Thank You The Master I felt terrible for not not identifying the difference between my question and his answer, and my retort was rash, and painted him in a bad light I admire his passion and his efforts, and his integrity to do what he thinks is best (although I disagree with his methods) In hindsight What I said was unfair (although it was inintentional) and for which I wish to apologise.


Assume away

Posted on 19-09-2010 14:19 | By Wussy

Graham -really? It is quite insulting you would take this line of questioning anyway...read \'if Johnny jumped off the bridge would you?\' Why would a majority demand he do something stupid anyway - what are you suggesting?


Might is not Right

Posted on 20-09-2010 09:36 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

You are welcome to think its insulting - that is your right. Just as I have the right to ask a question. Q: Why would a majority demand something stupid? A: Because the majority is simply that - the most people. It is not about the quality of ideas or thought- it is about quantity - the biggest GANG wins. Perhaps the minority think what the majority want is stupid - and I believe minorities have rights too. My original question was trying to find out if minorities had rights too, or only the majority. (ie 51 people get to destroy the rights of 49 people) Just because they are the majority does not unquestionably mean they are RIGHT.


Another inconsistency

Posted on 23-09-2010 12:45 | By Socrates

Graham you appear to be on a one man crusade at times. I have experienced an attack by you in the media a few years ago that in no way reflected the actual events that occurred.You manipulated the situation and the information to your own ends to try and create controversy. I am not sure what you are about but for a guy that has lived in this city as long as yourself and been through many ups and downs I do not think you should be so quick to react or throw comments around that are inaccurate and misleading. Maybe its time to go away and have a good look at where you came from and if you want to improve this city invovle yourself in a constructive way rather than trying to knock others.


Thanks Socrates

Posted on 24-09-2010 12:38 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

Thank you Socrates - I agree - I am pretty much on a one-man crusade. You will notice that I only attack those who wish to use FORCE upon me - I think you will find that my actions are what you may call SELF DEFENCE. I am passionate about defending my life my property and my rights and those of my family from those who would use force upon others to get a share of them. Anybody who wishes to debate with me without demanding the use of threats or force will get a fair hearing - anybody that wishes to use immoral methods to wrestle those things from me can expect my full opposition. I do not bow down to might is right, or do what the majority say I must without question. I have many innovative ideas and suggestions and ways to achieve mutual beneficial goals which I readilly share - NONE of which include the immorral use of force. Because I am on a lone-crusade, I often find myself fighting off the looters and second-handers from every direction - just because I am alone does not mean I am wrong - it just means I must fight harder to defend myself. I am very aware of where I came from, and the reason I fight so hard is because I truly DO want a better city, and passionately believe you are all going the wrong way about getting one - How long have they been doing the same things, the same way only for things to get worse - not better? I ONLY continue to knock others who continue to attack and destroy the rights of the individual, and property rights. Anybody who defends those things get a thumbs up from me - (although they dont appear very often)


Are you serious

Posted on 24-09-2010 13:21 | By Socrates

Well that sure is quite a statement Graham but seriously no one is out to use force on you. I fully respect your passion you just need to use it in the right direction! I really think the statement you have made here amounts to paranoia and is not balanced. Maybe you need to get things into perspective and seek some help with these issues. You are a very talented person in a number of areas and I know you are a good hearted chap so try stepping back from things and working through what is driving your bitterness


Are you serious

Posted on 24-09-2010 13:50 | By Socrates

Well that sure is quite a statement Graham but seriously no one is out to use force on you. I fully respect your passion you just need to use it in the right direction! I really think the statement you have made here amounts to paranoia and is not balanced. Maybe you need to get things into perspective and seek some help with these issues. You are a very talented person in a number of areas and I know you are a good hearted chap so try stepping back from things and working through what is driving your bitterness


Thanks Socrates

Posted on 24-09-2010 13:59 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

Thank you Socrates - I agree - I am pretty much on a one-man crusade. You will notice that I only attack those who wish to use FORCE upon me - I think you will find that my actions are what you may call SELF DEFENCE. I am passionate about defending my life my property and my rights and those of my family from those who would use force upon others to get a share of them. Anybody who wishes to debate with me without demanding the use of threats or force will get a fair hearing - anybody that wishes to use immoral methods to wrestle those things from me can expect my full opposition. I do not bow down to might is right, or do what the majority say I must without question. I have many innovative ideas and suggestions and ways to achieve mutual beneficial goals which I readilly share - NONE of which include the immorral use of force. Because I am on a lone-crusade, I often find myself fighting off the looters and second-handers from every direction - just because I am alone does not mean I am wrong - it just means I must fight harder to defend myself. I am very aware of where I came from, and the reason I fight so hard is because I truly DO want a better city, and passionately believe you are all going the wrong way about getting one - How long have they been doing the same things, the same way only for things to get worse - not better? I ONLY continue to knock others who continue to attack and destroy the rights of the individual, and property rights. Anybody who defends those things get a thumbs up from me - (although they dont appear very often)


Yes, Im serious

Posted on 24-09-2010 14:13 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

I have no problem, and I am not bitter. And I see property rights and personal responsibility as something worth passionately fighting for. If they weren't so important, I wouldn't be bothered - I have much better things to do with my life. I see the use of compulsion and the disregard it is held in as a serious threat to the way we all live. I think that you do yourself an injustice by not identifying or understanding what is meant by "The use of force" - It doesn't mean somebody threatening the shape of your nose or your smile! - it means making you do or comply with something that you would not chose to do if you had the choice! Do you mean that you would like to see me re-direct it in the direction that everybody else thinks is acceptable? I dont do this because its FUN! - I hate it! I do it because if everybody just rolled over every time somebody made a demand of their life, time, money, property etc, we would be a communist country by now. Thanks for your concern Socrates - my sanity is still intact (at present)


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.